I'm not crazy about the width either but zero net emissions and practically sitting on top of a transit hub should tip the scales in favour. New construction in the core has always pushed the limits of largeness. This one might be just a little ahead of its time. It would be unfortunate not to go ahead.
 
There certainly is an interesting debate here on creating a rule based system that is policed which constrains developers (some of which definitely need to be overseen) with the need for the market to be able to provide buildings (both office or maybe more importantly homes) at a supply and price that can sustainably support the demand of this growing city.
 
NeilV said:
Seriously why don't they just do this? Wouldn't that make everyone happy?
Click to expand...
Why? Because then your floorplate is too small for the tenant that is interested in the building, and then your building costs more to construct, throwing off your pro-forma. So the project doesn't work financially and doesn't get built.
 
I agree with the city on this. The width is ungainly and ugly. I don't care that it's tall or BIG or that it claims to be net-zero or that it might be re-worked to be more pleasant at street level. It needs to be slimmed down. Significantly. Period.
 
Automation Gallery said:
.

Amazing that the City could be so picky with developers in these uncertain Covid times,
....Gee most world cities would die to have this architect/development build in their town....sorry to say but we are spoiled here

The developers don’t want public money, and they want to start building now, COVID-19 be damned. “We’d start digging tomorrow if we could,” said Westbank CEO Ian Gillespie. “We have enterprises who are very interested, but we can’t say when the building will be complete because we don’t know how long the process of approval will take.”

Where’s the rule that says buildings should be narrow from east to west? There isn’t one. “There’s nothing in the bylaws that limit the width of the building,” Mr. Gillespie said. “It’s a purely subjective argument. And during a pandemic, this is what they want to argue about? To think of how we as a society get to net zero, there needs to be 10,000 projects like this.”
www.theglobeandmail.com

A green skyscraper: In Toronto, why is it a tall order?

City urban designers should worry less about how chunky a building is, and more about how it works at eye level
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...
Senseless red tape is one of the reasons why alot of the developments in the downtown core. End up looking cheap from the first time they propose a rendering idea in my opinion. It's like being hassled at the border trying to get through to where you're going! And you've already payed an expensive toll to pass through metaphorically speaking! COME ON LET ME PASS !!
 
It's interesting that the concern seems to be the view from the lake rather than the view of the lake. Unfortunately the wall of hi rise condos south of the Expressway built over last two decades has pretty much negated any views for the rest of us. As for impact from the lake I think One Yonge will have a much more pronounced effect. Just saying...
 
condovo said:
I agree with the city on this. The width is ungainly and ugly. I don't care that it's tall or BIG or that it claims to be net-zero or that it might be re-worked to be more pleasant at street level. It needs to be slimmed down. Significantly. Period.
Click to expand...
condovo said:
The city's argument against the tower's width isn't "senseless red tape" just because you don't agree with it.
Click to expand...
Nah. At one time, almost every tower was 'too big', 'too tall' or 'too wide' - the only reason you never heard those complaints about the TD Centre was that Planning wanted it and the public wasn't able to make them at the time. It's now considered by many to be our most beautiful. The fights over First Canadian and Scotia Plaza by O&Y and Campeau respectively are well documented. Both of those buildings got built and by and large, most people like them (or are able to passively ignore them at least). This is just another fight over a big building which will get resolved in time, will get built, then will blend in to the rest of them. It's no different.
 
I made inquiries with the planner and received this response:

".. city Planning staff are supportive of a new zero carbon office building on this site. We also have no issue with the height or a large office floor plate. The final built form issues we are working through with the developer have to do with the relationship of the podium and tower to the public realm at ground level. As you know the quality of the public realm is a key element of any successful development."​


...so the parties might actually be getting close to the short strokes..
 
bilked said:
I made inquiries with the planner and received this response:

".. city Planning staff are supportive of a new zero carbon office building on this site. We also have no issue with the height or a large office floor plate. The final built form issues we are working through with the developer have to do with the relationship of the podium and tower to the public realm at ground level. As you know the quality of the public realm is a key element of any successful development."​


...so the parties might actually be getting close to the short strokes..
Click to expand...

I think it likely depends on the degree to which there's unanimity across Planning with respect to the position that Macdonald advanced in that article. Planning is often viewed as a monolith -- and certainly they do their best (and understandably) to present a united front -- but the reality is that there's often nuance and disagreement among the various individuals (across departments) who touch a file.

Aside from the current state of play (in my view, a very good project that the City has stalled for no good reason), to me the most frustrating aspect of the City's (or at least Macdonald's) position here is the sheer arbitrariness of it. They've dug their heels into a position that is specifically stipulated nowhere in the City's planning policies; moreover, perhaps the most pathetic part of this argument is that Macdonald readily acknowledges in that very article that this project wouldn't even set a precedent for building width in Toronto, and also fails to explain what might be the negative consequences of approving a wide building.
 
ADRM said:
Aside from the current state of play (in my view, a very good project that the City has stalled for no good reason), to me the most frustrating aspect of the City's (or at least Macdonald's) position here is the sheer arbitrariness of it. They've dug their heels into a position that is specifically stipulated nowhere in the City's planning policies; moreover, perhaps the most pathetic part of this argument is that Macdonald readily acknowledges in that very article that this project wouldn't even set a precedent for building width in Toronto, and also fails to explain what might be the negative consequences of approving a wide building.
Click to expand...

It was Lynda Macdonald who wrote me back (and who I quoted from in my post). So it appears the position on floorplate size/width may have softened.
 
cd concept said:
Senseless red tape is one of the reasons why alot of the developments in the downtown core. End up looking cheap from the first time they propose a rendering idea in my opinion. It's like being hassled at the border trying to get through to where you're going! And you've already payed an expensive toll to pass through metaphorically speaking! COME ON LET ME PASS !!
Click to expand...
Remember when the City tried to force the KING Toronto project into a standard box ....

Same combination of applicants as this project too.
 
condovo said:
The city's argument against the tower's width isn't "senseless red tape" just because you don't agree with it.
Click to expand...
Besides, it's never really about "red tape"...rather short sightedness (no pun intended) and among other things that tends to get in the way. As I am pretty sure this building proposed is likely well within in the range of the guidelines to be built currently, if not better.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top